The most propersous state in the Union .. RIGHT NOW ?

reply to post by CynicalDrivel
Bobby Jindal is a RINO
Please do your homework on this loser before you give the GOP another "bright" idea.

RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL!!

Rick who?

Are you kidding?

Do you have a source for your claims of Texas being the "most prosperous?" And what are your parameters for how are you defining the word prosperous?

And I'm sorry, but if you are stumping for Rick Perry, why on Earth are you using The Clash in your avatar? Seriously, Are you aware that The Clash's moral and political beliefs are in direct, stark opposition and contrast to Perry's platform and the entire agenda of the Republican Party?

The Clash is anti-war, pro-environment, pro social equality, pro-human rights, pro working class, and pro-immigration. Rick Perry's beliefs are, well, the exact opposite of all of those things. You can't name a band that is more outspoken about being liberal/progressive and left-wing than The Clash. They're probably damn near socialists. If Strummer was still alive (RIP, Joe. Miss you!) and they were still making music together, they would be screaming their punk rock guts out about the current state of United States politics and the likes of Rick Perry. If you are going to campaign for Rick Perry, I implore you to change your avatar. Please.

reply to post by mishigas


Um.. if you thought about it for a second you would know.
Decriminalize drugs and even better to legalize marijuana. If you have it legally grown in the country, you begin to eliminate the need for armed thugs to bring it in in mass amounts from outside the country. Decrease the demand and naturally the supply will dwindle and the war for dominance over that demand dwindles as well. Also prices for the drugs fall and that helps to lower the local drug violence.

And as for the foreign policy.. it's not isolationism.. how is ending a couple wars and not fighting other peoples future war isolating ourselves? That's not much of an argument.

Originally posted by ProfessorVeritas
reply to post by CynicalDrivel

 

Bobby Jindal is a RINO
Please do your homework on this loser before you give the GOP another "bright" idea.

RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL!!

edit on 3-9-2011 by ProfessorVeritas because: (no reason given)

lmao. The dude isn't running. He's just going to get reelected as governer, is all.

reply to post by mishigas


Well ... I know how easy it can be to be swept up in an emotional response...especially when things are bad...Lord knows it has happened to me many times ..and I can only hope I am forgiven ..

so to rush toward radical views like Ron Pauls ..may seem the thing to do .... but .....

we just need to stay level-headed and keep an eye on the BIG PICTURE ..electing someone who can handle the job ...as Perry has handled the job of guiding Texas .. the "Tom Brady" of the field ..if you will....

calm, cool and collected.....

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

reply to post by mishigas


Um.. if you thought about it for a second you would know.

That's about all of your condescending attitude I'm gonna take. Save it for your anarchist buddies.

Not worth my time.

reply to post by sayiamu

reply to post by mishigas


Well ... I know how easy it can be to be swept up in an emotional response...especially when things are bad...Lord knows it has happened to me many times ..and I can only hope I am forgiven ..

so to rush toward radical views like Ron Pauls ..may seem the thing to do .... but .....

we just need to stay level-headed and keep an eye on the BIG PICTURE ..electing someone who can handle the job ...as Perry has handled the job of guiding Texas .. the "Tom Brady" of the field ..if you will....

calm, cool and collected.....

I'm surprised how quickly he overtook Romney in the polls. The debate next week should be interesting, except that with so many candidates, no one gets enough time to flesh out a decent answer.

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

reply to post by mishigas


Um.. if you thought about it for a second you would know.

That's about all of your condescending attitude I'm gonna take. Save it for your anarchist buddies.

Not worth my time.

Way to counter his argument. You can't because you can't address that logic. The simple facts are the we are fighting a drug war because they are illegal and we are fighting wars in foreign lands because of private interests (not our interests or safety). Lives can be saved on both fronts simply by changing policies.

Save money.
Save lives.
Free up energy commerce (by oil companies not being able to persuade lobbies to lie about renewable energy).
Make politics regarding personal liberty local, as they should be.

Don't call him an anarchist. Argue with his logic.

reply to post by Cuervo

Way to counter his argument. You can't because you can't address that logic. The simple facts are the we are fighting a drug war because they are illegal and we are fighting wars in foreign lands because of private interests (not our interests or safety). Lives can be saved on both fronts simply by changing policies.

Save money.
Save lives.
Free up energy commerce (by oil companies not being able to persuade lobbies to lie about renewable energy).
Make politics regarding personal liberty local, as they should be.

Don't call him an anarchist. Argue with his logic.

Don't even TRY to tell me what to do. He has no "logic". His is the typical lib tactic of ad hominem attacks when he cannot answer questions posed to hIM

He lost all debating privileges with me when he starts off with a sophomoric remark like
"Um.. if you thought about it for a second you would know." Well, a second is about all the time he has obviously given to analyzing the topic.

Regulate it and tax it and all will be just great. How many times have we heard that naive 'solution'? It's like "Why don't we all just love each other?":shk:

It's not so simple, but he will never get the benefit of another reasonable position on it because his attitude is that of a condescending child.

I tried to talk to him in a reasonable way, but he is too immature to hold that kind of conversation. So stop trying to BAIT me, stop TROLLING, and go eat your peas.

Originally posted by mishigas

Regulate it and tax it and all will be just great. How many times have we heard that naive 'solution'? It's like "Why don't we all just love each other?":shk:

But you haven't said why you don't think it will work. You just keep using cliche expressions to make it sound dumb.

Originally posted by mishigas
It's not so simple, but he will never get the benefit of another reasonable position on it because his attitude is that of a condescending child.

I tried to talk to him in a reasonable way, but he is too immature to hold that kind of conversation. So stop trying to BAIT me, stop TROLLING, and go eat your peas.

edit on 4-9-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-9-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)

Healthy debate doesn't become "trolling" just because you say it is. I am not "trolling" you because you feel like you cannot answer questions without comparing any position counter to yours as having a liberal agenda.

And "go eat your peas"? How does that mean anything?! Ok, I'll eat peas. Thank you?

After your target audience for your argument goes beyond your socioeconomic and geographic demographics, you need to stop using local expressions about eating things or hand holding. I personally like to hold hands and eat things. Just because you might have weird stigmas against basic day-to-day actions doesn't mean you will be understood when you espouse these strange superstitions to somebody who actually leads a life outside of a log cabin.

reply to post by Cuervo

Originally posted by mishigas

Regulate it and tax it and all will be just great. How many times have we heard that naive 'solution'? It's like "Why don't we all just love each other?"

But you haven't said why you don't think it will work. You just keep using cliche expressions to make it sound dumb.

I know I didn't. I told you why I was done with him.

Have you ever seen a person high on PCP? How can you possibly endorse that poison? Ever seen a 12 year old kid huffing paint? Hey, it's his body, right?

You want to be known as the nation of embalmed zombies walking around in a haze? Not me. And it *WILL* destroy the fabric of our nation. Our society will have just plunged the last spike in it's vein. Once our kids get turned loose on that sh*t it's all over for our future. And don't try any "freedom" argument -- nowhere does the Constitution endorse an immoral, suicidal, genocidal path for us.

Look at the misery alcohol has wreaked on our society, even with taxation and regulation. Hundreds of billions of dollars in medical costs, trillions in lost production, countless families torn apart. Multiply that times 100 for each harmful drug, and we're sunk.

Marketing a weaker intensity dosage won't work. It will never wipe out the market for the real kick-ass mccoy.

And what a perfect way for a government to control the people. Just think of the possibilities!

Now I agree that MJ is a totally different matter. That's another discussion. Every other thing, I'm against.

Healthy debate doesn't become "trolling" just because you say it is. I am not "trolling" you because you feel like you cannot answer questions without comparing any position counter to yours as having a liberal agenda.

Healthy debate does not start out with accusatory attempts at intimidation like "you can't answer his logic". Learn that and you will be more successful in communicating.

And "go eat your peas"? How does that mean anything?! Ok, I'll eat peas. Thank you?

Answer this: WHERE WAS THAT COMMENT IN THIS THREAD? Why would you drag comments FROM OTHER THREADS into this one? That is severely frowned upon, if you do it without acknowledgement.

After your target audience for your argument goes beyond your socioeconomic and geographic demographics, you need to stop using local expressions about eating things or hand holding. I personally like to hold hands and eat things. Just because you might have weird stigmas against basic day-to-day actions doesn't mean you will be understood when you espouse these strange superstitions to somebody who actually leads a life outside of a log cabin.

WTF are you talking about? Where did I say anything even remotely resembling that?? Your post is dangerously close to the Alert button...and is definitely trolling!

Originally posted by mishigas

Look at the misery alcohol has wreaked on our society, even with taxation and regulation. Hundreds of billions of dollars in medical costs, trillions in lost production, countless families torn apart. Multiply that times 100 for each harmful drug, and we're sunk.

Ok... so you support prohibition? That's all I needed to know to understand your perspective. I guess that answers my question.

Originally posted by mishigas

And "go eat your peas"? How does that mean anything?! Ok, I'll eat peas. Thank you?

Answer this: WHERE WAS THAT COMMENT IN THIS THREAD? Why would you drag comments FROM OTHER THREADS into this one? That is severely frowned upon, if you do it without acknowledgement.

You did say "eat your peas" in this thread and I still don't know what it means!

Originally posted by mishigas
Your post is dangerously close to the Alert button...and is definitely trolling!

edit on 4-9-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)

If you can get away with half of the condescending remarks you make towards others then I think I'll take my chances. Nothing I have said is trolling or "baiting". I have simply asked you to explain yourself without using folksy cute euphemisms that nobody really understands.

And I am staying on topic. Perry will use your very same logic when debating Dr. Paul and it will fail every bit as much as yours does now.

reply to post by Cuervo

Originally posted by mishigas

Look at the misery alcohol has wreaked on our society, even with taxation and regulation. Hundreds of billions of dollars in medical costs, trillions in lost production, countless families torn apart. Multiply that times 100 for each harmful drug, and we're sunk.

Ok... so you support prohibition? That's all I needed to know to understand your perspective. I guess that answers my question.

I stated the way things are. Nowhere did I support prohibition -- please, will ya? That's not even logical to draw a conclusion like that. It makes no sense. I stated that even with regulation, which is one of your arguments, these drugs cause many, many problems. We all know what happened under prohibition. But it was nowhere near the magnitude that drugs bring us.

Originally posted by mishigas

And "go eat your peas"? How does that mean anything?! Ok, I'll eat peas. Thank you?

Answer this: WHERE WAS THAT COMMENT IN THIS THREAD? Why would you drag comments FROM OTHER THREADS into this one? That is severely frowned upon, if you do it without acknowledgement.

You did say "eat your peas" in this thread and I still don't know what it means!

No, I did not. Prove I did. Show us where I said it in this thread. You cannot. Admit it. That's an attempt to derail the topic, and is actually baiting. It's also spreading disinformation, which is against the T&C.

Originally posted by mishigas
Your post is dangerously close to the Alert button...and is definitely trolling!
edit on 4-9-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)

If you can get away with half of the condescending remarks you make towards others then I think I'll take my chances. Nothing I have said is trolling or "baiting". I have simply asked you to explain yourself without using folksy cute euphemisms that nobody really understands.

Condescension is annoying, but spreading disinfo is against the T&C.

And, give me one example of using a folksy euphemism in this thread. Esp. one that mentions eating or holding hands, as you allege I did. Just one.

You're either very cognitively disoriented, confused, or otherwise strange because you haven't addressed one point of the arguments I put forward. Not a one. All you seem able to do is launch ad hominem attacks and erect strawman arguments.

I'd like you to show me proof of the statements you accuse me of making in this thread, apologize, or else be known as a troll and thread baiter.

Originally posted by mishigas

You did say "eat your peas" in this thread and I still don't know what it means!

No, I did not. Prove I did. Show us where I said it in this thread. You cannot. Admit it. That's an attempt to derail the topic, and is actually baiting. It's also spreading disinformation, which is against the T&C.

Man... I don't know why you insist on making me make you look bad because I was going to let this drop. But, here, in this post: "Eat Your Peas" It's the last sentence.

Originally posted by mishigas

And, give me one example of using a folksy euphemism in this thread. Esp. one that mentions eating or holding hands, as you allege I did. Just one.

Same link, further up. You said

Regulate it and tax it and all will be just great. How many times have we heard that naive 'solution'? It's like "Why don't we all just love each other?"

Look, if you want to keep saying things, then getting mad when people refer to it, why don't you just start a thread about it. Again, this is almost like looking into a crystal ball and seeing a future debate between Paul and Perry.

Now back to the prohibition issue, you are either for it or against it. You say you are against it but then use alcohol in contemporary society as an example of how it's an example of why legalizing drugs is a bad idea. Call me crazy but that sure sounded like an argument for prohibition to me. You can't have it both ways. You either think it's a good idea for the federal government to control substances (therefore enabling a vicious war against drug lords) or you think it's a bad idea. Which are you?

reply to post by mishigas


Yeah we have heard it a lot. Now what makes it naive? We have never tried to so you don't know anything for sure.

Also, grow up I could have come out with a remark calling you an idiot, I didn't. I mean what I said, think about it for a second and you would know. You tell me how I didn't answer your question and how I am wrong.

P.s. If you read my post you would see that taxing and regulating isn't the approach I take. It would regulate itself and it was would just be the governments choice if they want to tax it for money when business begin springing up.

reply to post by mishigas


Yeah.. I have seen someone high on PCP like maybe twice on cops. I would say there are a lot more people doing it, but it only becomes a known when they commit a crime beyond taking the drug.

Now you are starting to make points for me. Ok a kid is huffing paint that he bought legally. How does arresting him (if they even do arrest for this) stop crime other than this kid huffing a completely legal substance?

I just can't get over your logic that decriminalizing drugs will make people start using them? I highly doubt there is a person out there that isn't doing drugs solely because they are afraid to break the law. I think generally those type of people don't want to do drugs anyway. You are the one that has the sophomoric position guy.

Originally posted by mishigas

Marketing a weaker intensity dosage won't work. It will never wipe out the market for the real kick-ass mccoy.

This leads me to believe you don't understand the concept?
Decriminalizing it, doesn't mean the government or businesses can adopt it and start pushing their own. They won't 90 percent of these drugs will still be street drugs, but it will eliminate the need for super hardcore drug runners, with balls of steel, and a car full of guns from being the only ones willing to carry them and sell them and that will eliminate crime to an insane degree.. It will effectively change America to a safer nation.

90 percent of the drugs will still be illegal to legitimately sell in stores and companies just decriminalized. If you get caught with them you don't go to jail, you get a fine.

Also as for your "weaker intensity" statement (which proves to me you haven't grasped this concept and are waaay off the mark) marijuana that is legal tends to be way way stronger than what is usually available on the street. Not that what you are saying makes any sense.. no one will be making a "weaker intensity drug" I don't know why they would. That would be defeatist and like continuing the war.

reply to post by mishigas


Can you tell me what many many problems these drugs bring that isn't a direct cause of the war on drugs?

Please do it in list form so it is easier for me to refute them.

reply to post by Cuervo


Eat your peas was a reference to Obama's retort to Congress over the spending debate. And why don't we just love one another has been around since the hippies and used in many forms here on ATS. I can't believe you live such a sheltered life as not to have heard them.

So stop with the ad hominems and address my points on drugs. And don't draw conclusions without asking me what I meant. That's very narrow minded.